Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/louis-bacon-wikipedia-defamation-lawsuit_n_859499.html

http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-lawsuit-yank-barry-10-million/

 

That's something. But how many billionaires out there willing to step forward for psychical research? heh.

My Best,
Bertha

 

In some jurisdictions criminal libel charges can be laid by the police.

 

I just hope the bar is not lowered so low that anybody can libel anyone on the Internet.

i.e. Deliberately disseminated harmful information must be present on a very public, widely viewed platform, and presented as factual information. And NOT just people who are making comments on forums or engaging in discussions that are just matters of opinion. It is when those opinions are presented as factual "biographies" on a platform such as Wikipedia - presenting itself as a kind of encyclopedia - is where I feel "libel" would be applicable - as it can very much impact the reputation of a person, especially a scientist or scholar, or even an entire field of scientific inquire such as parapsychology.

My Best,
Bertha

 

I'm not going to bang my head against the wall, I'm not going to bang my head against the wall... aauuhh!!! *bangs head against the wall repeatedly*

 

In all fairness, the snark on RW is mostly limited to the political articles. The more scientific articles although written in favor of materialism are more serious and generally snark-free.

Also, assuming FuzzyCatPotato does represent RW's editor community he/she has been respectful for the most part. I think for the most part the rude, New Atheist types have died down since the beginning of the 2010s (It kind of helps for guys like Paul Kurtz of Phil Plait to speak out against the rudeness and snark).

 

Pursuing a libel case is very expensive and time-consuming. Court outcomes in matters like this are very uncertain. It would take a very wealthy or well- backed person to take someone like Wikipedia on I would think.

 

I agree. At least you know RW is going to have a particular perspective...Wikipedia isn't supposed to have that. But we really shouldn't consider Wikipedia a legit source of information either...

 

I agree here - RW is prejudiced and biased to the extreme, but its agenda-driven nature is obvious to any visitor, since they show it as clearly and explicitly as possible. Wikipedia is a much more dangerous source of misinformation and defamation, since it is usually considered to be "neutral", all-encompassing web encyclopedia. It gets some special knowledge to understand that is was conquered and colonized by militant skeptics long ago, and is used by them as (covert) propaganda outlet.

 

Heh, no. That'd require a level of organization RW doesn't have. RW just tries to prevent its editors from making obviously libelous statements and tries to talk with people who claim libel. It's a bit strange that you assume RW is actively trying to defame people.

Well, if RW was into learning people's addresses and harassment, that might be a problem.

When you try to edit a RW page as an IP, you get a big infobox telling you that your IP is publicly visible and that you should create an account. Because RW has disabled the Checkuser function, it's impossible for RW editors to find out a registered editor's IP address.

What policies are you referring to?

Thanks, maybe. :P

If you feel RW's pro-materialistic bias is unsubstantiated, feel free to tell us why.

Depends whether you catch RW's members pre- or post-coffee.

If you feel RW's pro-materialistic bias is unsubstantiated, feel free to tell us why.

What evidence supports the idea that WP has been "colonized by militant skeptics"?

 

Why else would you be making false statements about the original poster?

You clearly post material that people are interpreting as harassment, so it is a problem.

Why not have an actual face behind the anonymous trolls on Rational Wiki? A name and an email that people can contact to have their concerns addressed in a transparent manner with a real person? You hide behind anonymity while expecting people to put their personal information at risk in order to correct errors and address cyberbullying.

 

I can explain a number of possible arguments that RationalMedia could be held responsible financially, or publicly responsible in someway to the harm caused to someone from online harassment happening on their site.

Rational Wiki, regardless of the factual based nature of it's content, encourages editors to write in a 'snarky' voice. Snarky by nature is not just a critical voice - it's a demeaning voice at worst or satirical about best. It's fine if used in a creative setting, but in an encyclopedic setting it has it's own implications. Since editors are encouraged to write in this voice - and that 'snarky' commentary is apart of the RW IP held by RationalMedia organization, which raises money for RW, editors are encouraged to identify content that can fit this voice. In my case, if you remove the snark from my RW article - they are dealing with a piece of subject matter that both makes no sense to be on their site. I'm only fodder for their 'snark'. They have no evidence, cause, or even policy to address what happened to me on their platform.

Simply by having an biographical article about someone on the platform *implies* by default the presentation of that individual as a crank. This is concerning for RW as a publisher because the site DOES NOT DISCLOSE this to the reader. It does not say 'This article is satire and snark - this is not a biographical encyclopedia article, this is only a collective opinion of the RW community'.

In my case, there is no other third party biography on me online for the reader to hold against and make their own mind. It's not like I have a wikipedia article on me, so how can someone know if RW is accurate? They can't. RW has captured what is called 'primary discovery'. It's number one in search, so people who look me up for work and business (which happens about a half dozen times a week) read this article about me which misrepresents me, for the purposes of a snarky tone according to the publishing IP of Rational Wiki, that I am a troll, a 'crank' just for being on this site, and a promoter of pseudoscience. That's a bizarre claim to make about me. I'm in a technical field that also generates IP - so potential clients, buyers, investors, etc have that seed planted into their minds.

Additionally, I am the developer of a collaborative platform and I'm active in exposing abuses that happen on Wikipedia while creating consensus building mechanisms. If Rational Wiki does not think the inference of me is not harmful to the development of aiki wiki they are sorely mistaken. However, I would not have a libel case against RW editors. But I could have an harassment case against RationalMedia since their platform was used in an act of online harassment and their own RW IP of 'snark' supported such a campaign - and definitely would have a libel suit against Vzaak/Manul, potentially Tim Farley, who spread aspersions about me on Wikipedia, which Rational Wiki published and has been damaging. If Vzaak/Manul could be held for libel, then RW could be held for libel for republishing it. Additionally, RW runs ads on the site - not the same as Wikipedia. Because they run ads, they are generating revenue off of harassment and abuse. That can be expensive if proven in court for them.

However, the legal approach is expensive, time consuming, and more than likely not worth it.

The issue to hit Rational Wiki on is responsibility as an online publisher of factual based claims. What they did in my case is unethical from the point of view of any responsible publication. They have a PR 5, but they can also just as easily lose it.

 

I'm not sure how that's meaningful enough to prevent legal action. Just because you 'have a vote' no more meaningful than thumbing up content on Reddit does not mean you have a mechanism in place to determine if harassment is occurring on your platform. That's a red flag to bring in a third party to determine now.

Also - my claim is harassment to RW, which is not the same as libel. Libel is only applied to editors on Wikipedia and if that was to be made, it would be made to them.

You're just republishing libelous material that was obtained from Wikipedia talk discussions. If there is a claim that your community is publishing an article that republished libelous content from Wikipedia as an act of harassment, I'm not so sure you're safe just because you had a vote of a few members on the site.

Additionally, I'm not so sure either that it's not libelous just having me on your site at all. I believe an argument could be made that any subject of criticism of your site implies that subject IS a crank or some sort of pseudoscience person. That's damaging if you're an inventor of IP, actually have to run responsible business that use technology.

I could argue that RW knowingly and willing criticized me as a crank for the purposes of online harassment as payback for reporting I did exposing editorial abuses on Wikipedia by members of the skeptic community.

I could argue that this has damaged my reputation in consensus building communities and adoption of aiki wiki. I could argue that RationalMedia raises money from donors, runs donations on the site in addition to advertising revenue to fund such harassment.

 

Where to start? I would be happy to discuss the false claims, misrepresentations and omissions here.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Complex_Specified_Information

At least five different sources of active information have been discovered within the EV code. Perceptron structure, repeated queries, the hamming oracle, optimization of mutation and degree of mutation.

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.3/BIO-C.2010.3

The claim cited is from the author of the software himself. No further information is presented. It is falsely presented ax fact. A fact that should by all accounts lead to a noble prize in mathematics I would think.

The formulation of probalities by Dembski is not synonymous with the need to identify the quality of biological information. This was first recognised perhaps by origin of life researcher Lesli Orgle and further acknowledged by other materialists even from the likes of Jack Szostak. It is disengenuos to call it a creation of anyone. It exists. Semantic information exists. There is no materialistic mechanism for the emergence of a semiotic system or digital code.

Here is some reading on a bit of modern thought on biological information, from a book that was attempted to be banned, can you believe it? Who else used to burn books
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818#t=toc

It is also not true that it has no scientific support outside of math and computation. Wow that is some irony there when claiming EV represents biology don't you think?

Experimental studies into functional protein sequences show It on a practical level. This is a direct biological question relating to the sequence hypothesis and functionality. Again not restrictive to IDers but biology generally.

Also it is not specifically valid to the concept of irreducible complexity which has not been refuted btw The translation system which evolution depends on is itself irreducible, this is well known as the chicken and egg problem. Although IC can be related to specified information since these sytems themselves have digital plans encoded in linear sequences. It merely refers to just functional sequences. To say the idea is invalid is at odds with biological thought since the sequence hypothesis and digital code was discovered some 60 years ago. And at odds with math in general, and the fact the biology has become an information science since the dicovery of digital code.

There is bait and switching, poor research, poor understanding of the concepts, omission of vast amounts of history and research and only a single software program cited as a counter? One that has been thoughly examined with the sources of active information in the code positively identified. Debunked as you guys might say.

A proper investigation would include some of the counter claims and vast amount of literature on the subject. There is very little scientific rigor in any pages I have seen. Which is not many.

The rest of the article is just misplaced opinion and poor logical arguments. Unsubstantiated? There is no substance at all!

I could gladly examine other pages, plasma cosmology etc.. but I never took RW seriously anyway And it derails from the thread. Who would? Scìence is available to all, truth only for the ones willing to ask questions and not fall in line with consensus and label everything else as woo or psuedo science. The articles are weak and biased to the point of stretching truth into lie.

No I won't bother with the talk pages thanks, not worth my time. Reading it isn't so....

Actually on second thought I am not happy to discuss really, your pages on these subjects are simply copy and pastes of previous refuted critiques. I waste far too much time arguing with fundamentalists, just like arguing with the religious no different.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

Lol. Or that a computer program with multiple sources of active information represents biology. Yes it has no engine except for the constraints imposed by the used car salesman.

Just deliciously ironic.

 

I'm going to be doing a bit more publishing on this issue this year, primarily because I am no longer affiliated with ISHAR and they are not addressing the Wikipedia problem. I just posted a new blog, pulling one of the comments made to me on Wikipedia by a wikipedia editor called 'Dan Skeptic'. This was from 2003. This is how they were talking to me before I even got banned on Wikipedia or had an article on me on Rational Wiki.

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/04/rational-wiki-wikipedia-editor-comparison/

Nothing in this commentary by Dan Skeptic is factual.

Here is another one. Imagine reading comments about yourself like this while your editing an article on Wikipedia.

and they call me a conspiracy theorist?? Look at this narrative they created about me on Wikipedia. And reading all this was upsetting. But just when I was about to take them into RfC to address this type of behavior, I was banned indef. I had no idea the admins would even take this seriously, it flew directly in the face of Wikipedia policy.

 

Engaging Rational Wiki on their own talk pages is like accepting a dinner invitation from your rapist.

 

...and like setting up a dinner with your rapist, it can be used to record evidence against them for their behaviors so perhaps others wont get raped in the future.

EDIT: Believe me Craig, I knew what to expect entering Rational Wiki. I think the reason this issue does not get more traction is because it is so complex and deals with quirky internet subcultures that most people can't relate to. It's difficult online to distinguish what the conflict is about as it gets cluttered with claims about ideologies. As you know from our previous discussions, I believe the problem happening with online harassment is about the behaviors, not about the ideologies.

So I'm preparing over the next few months to release and re-publish allot of material that just focuses on the behaviors, citing their own rationale used in their own comments. Right now, I have a number of 'data sets' of online behaviors of what is essentially one large online community of skeptics spanning across Wikipedia on two major wiki wars, Sheldrake and Chopra, plus the shenanigans at Rational Wiki. It's going to be quite an indictment.

 

You have to be careful.

I know of a situation where an individual in a very senior position of authority was victimizing women by withholding their paychecks and using that leverage to get the women to agree to meet up "just to talk". He would later claim that if the women were so afraid of him, "Why did they meet up with him in compromising situations?" (He would never admit to withholding the paychecks. He gave them the check at the meetup, and once the woman had the check, there was no evidence it had ever been withheld). He insisted that everything that took place was consensual.

One women refused to meet up "just to talk". She went to the pay office and requested that the whereabouts of her check be investigated. The fact that her check was missing was then documented, the trail to the senior individual was discovered, and that individual was found guilty of abuse of authority. It sounds very simple, but she went without a paycheck going into the Christmas holidays while the office was closed. He picked a victim who was going through tough times financially. The perpetrator always timed things so that his victims didn't have a lot of choice.

You have to be aware that perpetrators of this kind of crime will always state that their intentions are innocent. They will say that they just want to talk and resolve the issues, and that sounds reasonable on the surface. But what they are really doing is trying to maneuver their victims into a more compromising situation.

There is never a level playing field when the perpetrator is anonymous and the victim is being being shamed in a public forum.

 

And thus Craig trivializes actual rape.

~~ Paul